Alcohol & Drugs: MIP, MIC, Intoxication Bodily Injury While Under the Influence on ATV WI, USA

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Ashbags

New Member
My younger brother (21) was out with a girl one night. They returned to his home (owned by my grandfather) and went out on an ATV. My brother drove and the girl was on the back. While in a field owned by my grandfather, the ATV rolled over. My brother called his friend who is a volunteer fireman who came over, stabilized them both and called an ambulance. The ambulance came and brought them both to the hospital. The girl remained in the hospital for several days with a concussion, fractured skull, and neck injury. My brother was treated for several lacerations and had his ear reattached by a plastic surgeon and went home for recovery. A breathalyzer showed his bac of .11 when asked by the DNR if he would consent to a blood test, my brother declined for his deadly fear of needles. He was then issued a fine (438.00 USD) from the Department of Natural Resources for declining the blood test and is set to appear in court in December. My brother is young and has no money. We are wondering it is worth challenging this fine due to the lack of being informed of the refusal of blood test consequences and what other penalties he may be facing. Any help or advice are greatly appreciated!

Thanks!
 
I'm not sure about the fine. I doubt they have to tell you what the fine may be, but it was probably smart of him to refuse it. It's odd, though, because in most OUIL cases, and all in Michigan, the police can get a Judge's warrant and force blood to be drawn from a suspect, unless they have diabetes and some other ailments.

For all the pain that your brother went through, he is extremely lucky he isn't facing criminal charges as well as civil action from the girl he was with.
 
We all agree with you that he is very fortunate; we are all thankful that they both escaped with minimal injuries (It could have been so much worse!) The girl and my brother are long-time friends and both blame themselves for the mess. The issuing department for his fine was the Department of Natural Resources, not the police (since he was driving a recreational vehicle)- and the incident took place in the state of Wisconsin, not Michigan. Is there anyway that my brother could wind up receiving more reprimand or be arrested for this incident in the future, or is the fine that he was issued that night the extent of his trouble. I have a close friend that is a police officer and he was unsure what the law was for OUI on an ATV vs. a vehicle. I know that on the fine that my brother did receive, it is stated that he admitted to drinking and to operating the three-wheeler. It also states that injury was incurred. Thank you so much for all of your help!
 
What is/are the statute number(s) of the charge(s)?
 
We are wondering it is worth challenging this fine due to the lack of being informed of the refusal of blood test consequences and what other penalties he may be facing.

www.atvsafety.gov/legislation/Wisconsinlaw.pdf

Any driver in Wisconsin consents to the statute by driving in Wisconsin.
 
I followed that link, but doesn't that statute refer to atv's operated on public land and on trails, this accident occurred in our private field. Also, my younger brother received an additional citation from the DNR today for operating the ATV while intoxicated.
 
Here is the current section he is charged with:

(e) Refusal. No person may refuse a lawful request to provide
one or more samples of his or her breath, blood or urine or to submit
to one or more chemical tests under par. (a). A person shall
not be deemed to refuse to provide a sample or to submit to a
chemical test if it is shown by a preponderance of the evidence that
the refusal was due to a physical inability to provide the sample
or to submit to the test due to a physical disability or disease unrelated
to the use of an intoxicant. Issues in any action concerning
violation of par. (a) or this paragraph are limited to:
1. Whether the law enforcement officer had probable cause
to believe the person was violating or had violated the intoxicated
operation of an all−terrain vehicle law.
2. Whether the person was lawfully placed under arrest for
violating the intoxicated operation of an all−terrain vehicle law.
3. Whether the law enforcement officer requested the person
to provide a sample or to submit to a chemical test and provided
the information required under par. (a) 2. or whether the request
and information was unnecessary under par. (a) 3.
4. Whether the person refused to provide a sample or to submit
to a chemical test.​
And, it does appear one can be charged for riding an ATV while impaired most anywhere:

(4c) INTOXICATED OPERATION OF AN ALL−TERRAIN VEHICLE. (a)
Operation. 1. 'Operating while under the influence of an intoxicant.'
No person may operate an all−terrain vehicle while under
the influence of an intoxicant to a degree which renders him or her
incapable of safe operation of an all−terrain vehicle.
2. 'Operating with alcohol concentrations at or above specified
levels.' No person may engage in the operation of an all−terrain
vehicle while the person has an alcohol concentration of 0.08
or more.
2m. 'Operating with a restricted controlled substance.' No
person may engage in the operation of an all−terrain vehicle while
the person has a detectable amount of a restricted controlled substance
in his or her blood.
3. 'Operating with alcohol concentrations at specified levels;
below age 19.' If a person has not attained the age of 19, the person
may not engage in the operation of an all−terrain vehicle while
he or she has an alcohol concentration of more than 0.0 but not
more than 0.08.​

- Carl
 
Conservation officers are fully commissioned peace officers, empowered to enforce all laws of the state of Michigan.

From page 15 onward at: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/ORVguide_95964_7.pdf
An ORV operator is considered to have given implied consent to chemical
tests of blood, breath or urine for blood alcohol levels, and a statutory presumption of intoxication exists for a person with a blood alcohol level of 0.10 grams or
more per 100 milliliters of blood, per 210 liters of breath or per 67 milliliters of urine.
 
Thank you for correcting that he is in Wisonsin. I would tend to think that DNR has the same enforcement rights in all states? no?
Beyond that though, I got to thinking that the fine imposed is nominal compared to the damage done to the girl who is not suing him and his own generally physical well being.

A broad question - in most states, a person can be fined or convicted for crimes on their own private property, no? I have known in VA, for instance, where the police may be called to a domestic and find a couple had been drinking and arguing and then outside the domicile say something where one of the couple walked outside to hear what the officer was saying and was then arrested for Drunk In Public. Or where a person driving a ride on lawn mower with a beer was arrested for DIP. It appears that one's private property is not a safety to many laws, particularly when alcohol is invovled. Is that generally correct?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Get a free case review from a lawyer
Back
Top